do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-838/24 P: Appeal brought on 08 December 2024 by XH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 02 October 2024 in Case T-11/23, XH v Commission
Date: 2024-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, administrator, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_202501873EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1873


7.4.2025






Appeal brought on 08 December 2024 by XH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 02 October 2024 in Case T-11/23, XH v Commission


(Case C-838/24 P)

(C/2025/1873)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: XH (represented by: K. Górny, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgement under appeal;










—


annul the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 31 May 2022 by which appellant’s name was not included in the list of officials promoted to grade AD 6 under the 2017 promotion exercise, as published in Administrative Notices No 25-2017 of 13 November 2017;










—


order compensation for loss and damages of the appellant;










—


alternatively, refer back the case to the General court;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law:
First plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the judgment of 25 June 2020, XH v Commission (T-511/18, EU:T:2020:291), during the procedure for the re-examination of the 2017 promotion exercise. The appellant submits that the Commission did not resume that procedure at the appropriate stage, that were irregularity of the vote within the Joint Promotion Committee (JPC) and that the right to be heard was not respected.
Second plea in law, alleging an absence of fair comparison of merits in respect of the 2017 to 2023 promotion exercises and a manifest error of assessment committed by the competent appointing authority in applying the criteria relating to promotion.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1873/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-639/24: Action brought on 8 December 2024 – PAN Europe and Others v Commission
Date: 2024-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: biodiversity, carcinogenic substance, health risk, herbicide, market approval, reproductive health, toxic substance








C_202500741EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/741


10.2.2025






Action brought on 8 December 2024 – PAN Europe and Others v Commission


(Case T-639/24)

(C/2025/741)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) and five other applicants (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the decision of the Commission of 26 June 2024, the French version of which was communicated to the applicants on 30 September 2024, rejecting the request for internal review of Implementing Regulation 2023/2660 of 28 November 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate, lodged by the applicants on 24 January 2024;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, concerning the toxicity assessment of the representative formulation MON 52276.










2.


Second plea in law, concerning the genotoxicity assessment of glyphosate.










3.


Third plea in law, concerning the carcinogenicity assessment of glyphosate.










4.


Fourth plea in law, concerning the assessment of the effect of glyphosate on the microbiome.










5.


Fifth plea in law, concerning the neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity assessment of glyphosate.










6.


Sixth plea in law, concerning the assessment of the effect of glyphosate on biodiversity.










7.


Seventh plea in law, concerning the risk management relating to the use of glyphosate.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/741/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)